coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
10.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Ankara.
11.  On 23 March 1995 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody by police officers from the Ankara Security Directorate. He was accused of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, the DHKP-C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front).
12.  On 6 April 1995 the public prosecutor attached to the Ankara State Security Court filed an indictment with the latter charging the applicant, under Articles 168 § 2 and 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, with membership of an illegal organisation.
13.  On 10 April 1996 the Ankara State Security Court found the applicant guilty of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, the DHKP-C, and sentenced him to three years and nine months’ imprisonment and debarred him from public service for three years.
14.  The applicant appealed. On 11 June 1997 the chief public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion (tebliğname) on the merits of the appeal to the Court of Cassation. The chief public prosecutor proposed that the first instance court’s judgment be upheld. The written opinion of the chief public prosecutor was read out during the hearing before the Court of Cassation.
15.  On 10 July 1997 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal upholding the Ankara State Security Court’s judgment.
6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Zadar, Croatia.
7.  On 1 November 1991 the applicant’s house in Starigrad was set on fire by unknown members of the local police.
8.  On 12 April 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for her damaged property.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999 (Zakon o dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 112/1999), the Zadar Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 10 March 2000. The applicant appealed against that decision. On 17 May 2001 the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) rejected her appeal. On 30 January 2002 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed her appeal on the points of law as inadmissible.
10.  Pursuant to the Damage Caused by Members of the Croatian Army and Police during the Homeland War Act 2003 (Zakon o odgovornosti Republike Hrvatske za štetu uzrokovanu od pripadnika Hrvatskih oružanih i redarstvenih snaga tijekom Domovinskog rata, Official Gazette no. 117/2003), the proceedings resumed on 3 December 2003.
6.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Sesvete, Croatia.
7.  On 7 April 1994 the applicant’s house in Sesvete was destroyed by fire as a result of an explosion in a military depot.
8.  On 20 September 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999 (Zakon o dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 112/1999), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 2 March 2000.
10.  The proceedings resumed on 20 November 2003 pursuant to the “Damage Caused by Members of the Croatian Army and Police during the Homeland War Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti Republike Hrvatske za štetu uzrokovanu od pripadnika Hrvatskih oružanih i redarstvenih snaga tijekom Domovinskog rata, Official Gazette no. 117/2003).
8.  The applicants were born in 1944 and they live in Malatya.
9.  On the evening of 5 November 1996, ten PKK members came to the applicants’ house. The same day, security forces were informed that a group of PKK members were hiding in the applicants’ village and they carried out an operation in the village to apprehend the PKK members.
10.  At around 11 p.m. the security forces surrounded the applicants’ house and requested them to come out. The applicants and their sons Bülent, born in 1974, and Turabi, born in 1977, emerged from their house. They showed the security forces the direction in which the PKK members had fled. A clash broke out and the security forces fired a rocket which killed Bülent.
11.  Following the death of his son, the first applicant stated before the Doğanşehir public prosecutor that his son had been killed by the security forces. The applicant asked the prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings.
12.  A preliminary investigation into the incident was commenced by the Doğanşehir public prosecutor. The prosecutor subsequently decided that he had no jurisdiction to prosecute and transferred the case file to the Doğanşehir District Administrative Council.
13.  On 31 July 1997 the Doğanşehir District Administrative Council issued a decision stating that no prosecution should be brought against the members of the security forces. The Council concluded that the applicants’ son had died in the course of a confrontation between PKK members and the security forces.
14.  The applicants filed an objection with the Malatya Regional Administrative Court against the decision of 31 July 1997.
15.  On 29 September 1997 the Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ objection.
5.  The applicant, Mr Viktor Petrovich Romashov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1954 and currently resides in Lysychansk, Ukraine. The applicant is a pensioner.
6.  In May 1998 the applicant filed an application with the labour disputes commission of the Lysychans’ke Derzhavne Shakhtobudivne Upravlinnia (the “DSU”) to recover unpaid salary from a State-run coal mine.
7.  On 16 June 1998 the labour disputes commission of the DSU allowed his claims and ordered the DSU to pay the applicant UAH 8,783.39[1] in compensation. On the same date the commission issued a certificate to the applicant, which had the same status as a writ of execution.
8.  On 27 July 1998 the DSU’s property was attached by the tax inspectorate.
9.  On 9 June, 7 July and 19 November 1999 the applicant was paid UAH 500[2], UAH 300[3] and UAH 210[4] respectively.
10.  On 30 April 2000 the Lysychansk Department of Justice informed the applicant that there was a tax lien over the DSU’s property and it was therefore not possible to attach it. It also informed the applicant that there was no funding in the State budget to execute the decision of 16 June 1998.
11.  On 14 June 2000 the applicant was informed that the labour commission decision of 16 June 1998 could not be executed due to the Coal Mining Ministry’s lack of funds.
12.  On 23 January 2002 the Lysychansk City Court awarded the applicant UAH 2,282.21 to compensate for the loss of value of the sum awarded to him due to inflation. The applicant submitted that this judgment has remained unenforced.
13.  On 10 January 2003 the applicant informed the Court that the execution proceedings in his case were still pending.
14.  On 28 November 2003 the DSU paid the applicant the full amount of the debt awarded by the decision of 16 June 1998.
15.  On 1 December 2003 the Execution Service terminated the enforcement proceedings as the judgment of 16 June 1998 had been enforced in full (UAH 8,783.39[5]).
4.  The applicants were born in 1943, 1943 and 1944 and live in Dunavecse and Budapest, respectively.
5.  By a judgment of 30 June 1988 delivered by the Budapest Regional Court the applicants were registered as the inventors of a tool called the “sledge”. Their shares in the invention were 35%, 20% and 40%, respectively, leaving 5% to a fourth person who is not a party to the proceedings before the Court.
6.  On 5 October 1993 Mr Nagy and Mr Veizer brought an action before the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court, sitting as a first-instance court, against an agricultural co-operative. They sought royalties and requested that they be given possession of the tool.
7.  On 16 March and 25 May 1994 the Regional Court held hearings. On the latter date the court requested the defendant to submit certain documents. Having failed to comply with the order, on 16 September 1994 the court imposed a fine on the defendant.
8.  On 2 March 1995 the Regional Court heard the parties.
9.  On 9 March 1995 the Regional Court granted royalties and interest thereon to the plaintiffs and obliged the defendant to hand over the tool to Mr Veizer.
10.  On appeals of March 1995, on 29 May 1996 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, heard several witnesses. On 11 September 1996 the Supreme Court, in a partial decision, confirmed the first-instance judgment concerning the return of the tool but quashed the remainder and remitted it to the Regional Court.
11.  Although the partial decision became final, the defendant failed to hand over the tool to Mr Veizer. The subsequent enforcement proceedings were unsuccessful. Consequently, Mr Nagy and Mr Veizer extended their action, claiming damages and unrealised profits resulting from the inability to use the tool.
12.  In the resumed proceedings, on 6 January 1997 the Regional Court appointed an expert engineer. He submitted his opinion on 17 March 1997 and amended it on 10 June 1997.
13.  The parties having failed to appear at the hearing on 14 October 1997, the Regional Court ordered the suspension of the proceedings. On Mr Veizer’s request of 29 January 1998 the proceedings were resumed.
14.  On 26 March and 9 June 1998 the Regional Court held hearings. On the latter date the court heard the expert and requested him to complete his opinion.
15.  On 2 September 1998 the Regional Court put further questions to the expert, to which he replied on 25 September 1998. At the hearing on 30 September 1998 the court requested the parties to submit their observations on the completed expert opinion.
16.  On 16 November 1998 the third applicant, Mrs Veizer, also brought an action on the same ground against the co-operative. Her action was joined to the remitted proceedings.
17.  The Regional Court held hearings on 3 and 24 March 1999.
18.  On 28 April 1999, the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court accepted part of the applicants’ claims. On 11 June 1999 the applicants appealed.
19.  On 14 November 2001, the Supreme Court, sitting as a second instance court, confirmed the first-instance judgment. This decision became final.
6.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Åkarp.
7.  He owns a piece of real property in central Lund. Wishing to make an extension to the residential house situated on that property – a construction requiring a building permit under the Planning and Building Act (Plan- och bygglagen, 1987:10) – he applied, on 2 April 1990, to the Building Committee (byggnadsnämnden) of Lund for a tentative approval (förhandsbesked) of the permissibility of this project. The purpose of such an approval is to give a property owner, who is planning a building project for which the grant of a building permit is uncertain, the possibility to obtain an advance assessment of whether the planned measures may at all be permitted, thereby avoiding unnecessary projecting work and costs. In assessing an application for a building permit made within two years after the issuance of a tentative approval, the building committee is bound by the determinations made in that approval.
8.  On 19 August 1992 the Building Committee, having obtained the opinions of some neighbours and several municipal offices, declared that a building permit could not be expected. It did not therefore give a tentative approval of the construction project.
9.  The applicant appealed against the Building Committee’s decision. On 16 May 1994 the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of the County of Malmöhus, having obtained the observations of the Committee and the applicant on several occasions and visited the location of the property, upheld the appealed decision.
10.  Upon the applicant’s further appeal, the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Gothenburg held an oral hearing at the location of the applicant’s property on 29 March 1995. By a judgment of 21 April 1995 it rejected the appeal.
11.  The applicant then appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) which, by a decision of 15 October 1996, granted him leave to appeal. The court obtained the opinions of the Building Committee and the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning (Boverket). By a judgment of 25 November 1997 it rejected the appeal.
5.  The applicant, Mr Alexandru Ţîmbal, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1944 and lives in Chişinău, Moldova.
6.  The applicant was an employee of the Ministry of the Interior from 1963. In December 1994 he retired. In 1999 he lodged with the Chişinău District Court a civil action against the Ministry of the Interior seeking the difference between the pension he had received and the amount to which he was entitled (calculated pursuant to the Law of 23 June 1993 fixing the pensions for servicemen and military personnel of the Ministry of the Interior).
7.  On 16 September 1999 the District Court awarded the applicant compensation in the amount of 8,394.40 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 737.37 euros (EUR) at the time). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.
8.  On 1 October 1999 the District Court issued an enforcement warrant and sent it to the State Treasury for enforcement. However, enforcement was refused because of a lack of funds on the account of the Ministry of the Interior.
9.  In November 1999 the applicant lodged an administrative action with the Court of Appeal seeking to compel the Ministry of Justice to enforce the judgment. On 24 November 2000 the Court of Appeal dismissed the action finding that jurisdiction in the matter lay with the competent district court.
10.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court against this decision. On 27 December 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal.
11.  Throughout 2001 the applicant complained about the failure to enforce the judgment to the bailiff assigned to the case, but to no avail. He also complained to various judicial and executive authorities including the Chişinău District Court, the Ministry of Finance, the Parliament, the State Chancellery, the Office  of the President of Moldova, the Ministry of the Interior, the Office of the Prosecutor General and the Ministry of Justice. In a letter of 30 January 2002 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the judgment of 16 September 1999 could not be enforced due to the lack of funds on the bank account of the Ministry of the Interior.
12.  The judgment was enforced on 25 April 2003, following communication of this application to the Government by this Court in February 2003.
9.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Poznań.
10.  In March 1988 the applicant got divorced. She has two children, who were at that time about two years old and four years old respectively.
11.  On 22 May 1988 she filed with the Poznań District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition in which she sought the division of the shared property of her and her former husband.
12.  The court held hearings on 29 September and 11 November 1988, 4 April and 30 May 1989, 24 March, 24 May, 28 August and 25 October 1990, 4 February, 24 August and 18 November 1992, 27 January, 12 May and 19 August 1993, 9 November 1994, 11 January, 22 February, 26 April, 21 June and 25 August 1995, 9 February, 3 July, 16 October and 15 November 1996, 23 May and 31 December 1997, as well as 16 January 1998.
13.  The court ordered 6 expert opinions concerning the value of the disputed property, out of which 3 had been prepared with a delay of five months.
14.  On 16 January 1998 the court gave judgment. It granted the applicant, inter alia, the right to the flat in a housing co-operative and several objects located there. Her husband was granted, inter alia, a car and he was supposed to pay a certain sum to the applicant. The court pointed out that the parties to the proceedings had contested each other's statements with respect to most of the objects and on a few occasions had changed their own statements.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Zakopane, Poland.
5.  The applicant and a co-operative “PSS Społem” were co-owners of an estate in Zakopane. On 29 November 1995 the co-operative filed with the Zakopane District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an application for dissolution of the co-ownership of the estate.
6.  The court held hearings on 10 and 24 January 1996. On the latter date it ordered an expert opinion. On 21 February 1996 the court held a viewing of the site. On 19 April 1996 the expert submitted his opinion to the trial court. On 27 May 1996 the court ordered that a supplementary expert opinion be obtained. It was submitted to the court on 28 June 1996.
7.  At the hearing held on 18 September 1996 the court heard evidence from an expert. The court further ordered him to prepare a supplementary opinion. It was submitted to the court on 10 October 1996.
8.  On 3 February 1997 the court held a hearing and appointed a new expert. On 30 June 1997 the new expert submitted his opinion to the court.
9.  At the hearing held on 21 January 1998 the court decide to obtain evidence from yet another expert. The opinion was submitted to the court on 17 June 1998.
10.  In her pleading of 3 September 1998 the applicant submitted a new proposal concerning the division of the estate. On 28 September 1998 she revoked it.
11.  The court held hearings on 16 December 1998, 22 February and 7 April 1999. On 17 December 1999 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from an expert. At that hearing the applicant authorised her father, who was a court expert, to represent her in the proceedings. As a result, the judge rapporteur asked to be excluded from dealing with the case. On 7 January 2000 the District Court acceded to his request.
12.  On 24 January 2000 the applicant challenged the impartiality of all judges sitting in the Zakopane District Court. On 7 March 2000 the Nowy Sącz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant's challenge.
13.  On 15 September 2000 the court held a hearing and ordered another expert opinion. Subsequent hearings were held on 23 April and 23 May 2001. On 6 June 2001 the District Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed. It appears that the proceedings are pending.
4.  The applicant, Renovit Építőipari Kft, is a Hungarian limited liability company, with its seat in Budapest.
5.  On 24 August 1990 the I. Company brought an action against the applicant company before the Budapest Regional Court, claiming compensation in the amount of 106,493 Hungarian forints (HUF).
6.  On 30 October 1991 the Regional Court accepted the plaintiff's claims. The applicant appealed on 6 December 1991.
7.  On 11 May 1994 the plaintiff's successor entered the proceedings.
8.  On 12 May 1994 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court's judgment and remitted the case to the first instance court.
9.  On 30 November 1994 the competent Pest Central District Court held a hearing and requested the plaintiff to specify its claims. On 15 December 1994 the plaintiff complied with this order and extended its action to include a second defendant.
10.  On 10 January 1995 the District Court requested the applicant to submit observations on the specified claims. The applicant complied with this order on 20 January 1995.
11.  On 8 March 1995 the District Court heard witnesses and requested the parties to submit further documents. The plaintiff and the applicant complied with this order on 9 March and 5 May 1995, respectively.
12.  The District Court held hearings on 16 May and 26 September 1995, and 12 January, 10 April and 14 May 1996.
13.  In the meantime, on 16 April and 26 August 1996, the court instructed the plaintiff to request that its legal predecessor be discharged from the proceedings. The plaintiff complied with the instruction on 20 September 1996.
14.  On 6 November 1996 none of the parties appeared at the hearing. Consequently, the District Court stayed the proceedings.
15.  On 8 April 1997 the plaintiff requested that the proceedings be continued. In the resumed proceedings, on 22 October 1997 the District Court held a hearing and requested the applicant to submit some documents.
16.  On 6 February and 14 May 1998 the District Court held further hearings.
17.  On 22 October 1998 the District Court delivered a judgment and ordered the applicant to pay HUF 106,493 to the plaintiff. The applicant appealed on 2 January 1999, outside the statutory time-limit. On 6 April 1999 the District Court decided to accept the applicant's explanation for the delay and transferred the case to the Budapest Regional Court.
18.  At the hearing on 4 May 2000 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision.
4.  The applicants were born in 1975, 1947, 1961 and 1985 respectively and live in Zgierz, Poland.
5.  On 8 July 1992 the company with which the applicants had concluded a lease contract sued them for payment before the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).
6.  On 9 March 1993 the court held the first hearing.
7.  At a hearing on 6 April 1993 the applicant brought a counterclaim for payment.
8.  On 27 April 1993 the court held a hearing.
9.  On 17 March 1994 the court held a hearing.
10.  A hearing scheduled for 21 April 1994 was adjourned because the judge was ill.
11.  A hearing set down for 18 May 1994 was adjourned because witnesses failed to appear.
12.  On 18 January 1995 the applicants sent a letter to the court asking for a hearing date to be fixed.
13.  On 21 June, 10 July and 3 September 1996 and 17 March 1997 were adjourned because the parties had started friendly settlement negotiations.
14.  On 18 June, 28 October and 11 December 1997, 19 February, 20 April and 17 July 1998 the court held hearings.
15.  On an unspecified date in 1999 the composition of the court changed.
16.  On 11 February 1999 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. The expert report was submitted to the court on 20 April 1999.
17.  On 9 June, 6 September, 4 October and 20 December 1999 the court held hearings.
18.  On 21 December 1999 the court allowed the plaintiff's claim and dismissed the applicants' counterclaim.
19.  On 19 May 2000 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicants' appeal against the first-instance judgment.
20.  On 30 June 2000 the applicants lodged a cassation appeal.
21.  On 11 January 2002 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to deal with the appeal. A copy of the decision was served on the applicants on 27 March 2002.